Jump to content

The Swedish Experiment


Recommended Posts

Just one example of bullshit over hospitalisation rate and acute care capacity, two DIFFERENT metrics.

You deliberately misquote and or ignore what was posted.

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

A country where hospitalisations are now rising faster than in any other country in Europe, now doubling every 8 days.

Acute care still within capacity.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Nor do we know the timeline that the "rate" is being measured over.  Is it one day, a week, two weeks or more?..

... Denmark currently has TWICE the number of intensive care admissions than Sweden.

 

You are a shameless liar.

I'm no longer replying to give your fucking diversionary 'thread fat bergs' oxygen.

Fuck off cunt.

PS. 

47 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

However the number of confirmed cases is substantially higher and the UK numbers seem to have plateaued

The UK just reporting a RECORD 33k new cases is NOT plateauing. Same day one week ago it was 25K. Hospitalisations and deaths (2/3 peak) rising towards April numbers 

It is also 10 TIMES that of 3K in mid Sept (a just post plateau for weeks) which you said was too late to lockdown by you saying;

"But it was too late then (15 Sept). Cases were already well over 3,000 a day."

Dangerous Cunt.

Goodbye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

First of all:  how is your trip to Spain going? Now. Any single person who doesn’t die from this is excellent news. And anyone who doesn’t contract the virus is also good news. For starters

Everyone in this thread is probably in a nursing home. They sound like Joe Biden trying to form a cognitive sentence.    "Uh, but, cases only, g.g.g.g.go down with lock-down." 'If you don't w

Im hazarding a guess that you have never had to walk into the waiting room and tell a husband, son daughter father that their wife mother daughter has passed. Because today in the USA 512 doctors or n

Posted Images

36 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Come on Jacko.  Cut some slack here and apply your rules to yourself.

"Source behind paywall" - the source is an article in the Financial Times.  So at best it is an interpretation of the data - which source data we don't know.  Nor do we know the timeline that the "rate" is being measured over.  Is it one day, a week, two weeks or more?

You infer that the rate quote is from Tegnell and Byfors.  It doesn't appear to be so.  The only direct quote of Tegnell is the word "concerning".

Neither of them refer directly to their Nordic neighbours - the journalist does.

The only direct quote of Byfors is "We also see that many other countries in Europe that had a big effect during the spring.....'  - finishing with "We don't know why this is".

Now, as per your modus operandi, you posted all this stuff to trash Blatant Echo's post of a graph depicting real data and to support your own narrative.

If you go to the Government officially sourced data for both Sweden and Denmark you will find that Denmark currently has TWICE the number of intensive care admissions than Sweden.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa - Sweden
 

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/aa41b29149f24e20a4007a0c4e13db1d - Denmark

 

 

Here is the latest daily change data for hospital admissions for Denmark - the daily change was +10% for both admissions and intensive care.  https://www.sst.dk/da/corona/tal-og-overvaagning 

image.thumb.png.16dae2dcee1dc80e17f4c72e83f95a74.png

Mind you, Sweden has (had) one of the lowest ICU per capita rates in the EU. 5.x vs 11.x . Denmark was nit great, but appr. 1/5 better.

Many rural hospitals in Sweden were at capacity and doctors were -rightly so- cautious to put people into ICU beds, knowing that  the treatment itself can cause fatal stress.

Here is a good read on the subject

https://www.thelocal.com/20200623/how-sweden-doubled-intensive-care-capacity-to-treat-coronavirus-patients

Fwiw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Matagi said:

Mind you, Sweden has (had) one of the lowest ICU per capita rates in the EU. 5.x vs 11.x . Denmark was nit great, but appr. 1/5 better.

Many rural hospitals in Sweden were at capacity and doctors were -rightly so- cautious to put people into ICU beds, knowing that  the treatment itself can cause fatal stress.

Here is a good read on the subject

https://www.thelocal.com/20200623/how-sweden-doubled-intensive-care-capacity-to-treat-coronavirus-patients

Fwiw.

Fair point.  So rounding the figures roughly 550 people were in ICU in the first peak and now it is around 120.  So what you are saying is that  a large proportion of the people in ICU in the first peak didn't need to be there therefore the comparison is actually closer.  However the total hospitalisations currently is still below the peak and is at the same level as 30 March.  This is all on the back of more confirmed cases.

The same trend is evident with the UK.  Some commentators don't understand trends though and will pick the worst day out of a series and publish that as a trend.  When it isn't.

For example if you looked at the following graph of cases in the UK you will see a spike to the right - "a record" but the overall trend is still a plateau.  Also note that at regular intervals there are similar "spikes" which can be accounted for by reporting timelines.   If the following week shows a rolling average upwards THEN you can say there is an upward trend but NOT before.  What we will hear in the media though is only the noise around a "daily record of cases".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Matagi said:

Yes. Titled "'The biggest challenge of our time': How Sweden doubled intensive care capacity amid Covid-19 pandemic"

Hence 

26 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:
2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

..Acute care still within capacity...

Aged care concerns now rising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The single largest mistake made by many is taking the UK and "talking granular' but NOT using "granular data" and ALSO forgetting the devolved nature of health care in the UK amoungst the unions and equalising it by population.  For instance. 

When you look at new COVID-19 cases by specimen date (i.e. by the date on which test samples were actually collected) the incidence of new infections per 100,000 people has stabilised or fallen in every part of the UK, EXCEPT... England.

This suppresses the new case '7 day rolling average' trend line' where the majority of the UK population reside and are hospitalised.

The difference is clear, and remarkable.

The underlying data for the graph below comes from here. This excludes record rise for 10 and 11 Nov.

EmpFuO2XMAI4goT.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Matagi some commentators also don't understand trend reporting and that 7 day rolling averages are a better indication of what direction current data is taking.  So for example if you display actual numbers you will see different slopes on the line.  If the slope of each segment is declining then it would indicate that the rate of infection is declining.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

51 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So what you are saying is that  a large proportion of the people in ICU in the first peak didn't need to be there therefore the comparison is actually closer

I did not say or imply this.

But I agree that the definition of 'trend' is very hard and it seems to be a question of which policy you want to introduce that determines, which statistical evidence you pick from a vast arsenal.

I think that positivity rate and the angle of incline/decline give you a good idea of where things are going.

But that does not apply once the testing strategy changes (Belgium) or you test too little or worse, reach test capacity.

Hospitalisation rate, ICU admission can give you an idea if you can cope. I see little correlation here so far. Sweden: few ICU beds/c.: crashed. Belgium: one of the highest ICU beds/c.: crashed big. So... 

Death rate: similar. The general health and age structure are very determining factors, it's better to compare age+gender groups.

In no way is it a short-term steering KPI. It can only give a hint months after, whether sth. went wrong or horribly wrong, and even then you have so many variables (viral load, living curcumstances, health care accessibility). 

And maybe they are right in their approach. Maybe France is right. Maybe the UK. You have to see that every country has basically started in Feb/Mar at the same point.

But going into the winter, we are all at pretty different spots so in my view, the whole 'hypothesis' for this discussion, and any attempt to find a valid closing argument is futile as comparability is (currently) not given.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post Matagi.  Just imagine the chaos and unrest if the general public had this instanteous access to data, information, social media and news during the Spanish Influenza pandemic.

I'm picking many of us will view 2020 in a different light by this time next year if not earlier.

My bet is that the subsequent inquiries will find that this pandemic has played out no different than what was forecast and on which all the abandoned strategies were based on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 7:04 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

WHO's figure was actually 20 times - 10% of the world's population.  The CDC have said with the USA it could be between 6 to 24 times higher.

The data for the antibody testing is posted here https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-trends.page

There is some really good stuff there, the data can be downloaded too.

Comparison of % positive standard testing vs antibody testing shows a large discrepancy, 3 to 13% vs 12 to 47% respectively, which is roughly a fourfold difference. Presumably the difference is due to significantly different methodologies for collecting samples. The relative differences between areas seems consistent though. Until that can be explained, it's unsafe to base an analysis on just one set of data or type of testing.

Standard test % positive

1521211667_Standardtesting.png.d38d773364e32cc0ab21aaea090d31e0.png 

Antibody % positive

624506032_Antibodytesting.png.85c9adc0ebc8802168684776560312c4.png

PS

This may seem a little off topic, but NY is a pretty good test sample for discussions around "natural herd immunity" and the Swedish experiment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matagi said:

But going into the winter, we are all at pretty different spots so in my view, the whole 'hypothesis' for this discussion, and any attempt to find a valid closing argument is futile as comparability is (currently) not given.

Amen to that.

Unless you are prepared to drill down and equalise, starting first on a national level BEFORE making international comparisons, then you are just spinning your wheels. The simple UK new cases by union example I posted above is one where national data can be very misleading.

Also sometimes you need to think outside the actuary square.  Like for instance  chasing down any statistical link between 'cause of death' and 'movies' is fruitful, but exhausting work.

Do you know how many fucking movies you have to watch to get a reliable actor/actress data match for Convid-19 mortality??

The correlation between swimming pool drownings and appearances by Nicolas Cage was piss easy by comparison.

Emm7xYPXUAEA3KB.jpeg

PS. Kate before you chime in and say that chart is incomplete and misleading, the definitions are as follows; Pool as in Swimming Pool and the WHOs' definition for Drowning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RobG said:

PS

This may seem a little off topic, but NY is a pretty good test sample for discussions around "natural herd immunity" and the Swedish experiment.

Yes it may well be but arguably NYS was a bigger "experiment" than Sweden.

Herd immunity wasn't the strategy in Sweden.

There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.  They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

Those strategies are all based on suppressing infection to a level that the respective health systems can cope with AND minimising unintended consequences or put another way minimising economic effects, other negative health outcomes etc.

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

In a colloquial sense of not following the crowd, yes. Scientifically, no.

Quote

NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked.

Yeah, the same kind of panic you get with a gunman in  a crowd. Panic is not necessarily illogical or unreasonable, particularly in the context of NY in April with 10,000 cases and nearly 1,000 deaths per day. On a per capita basis, Sweden was never anywhere near those numbers.

You also can't ignore the very different responses of the respective national governments: calm and rational, if unorthodox, vs denial.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Herd immunity wasn't the strategy in Sweden.

"Herd immunity wasn't the strategy in Sweden" 

Now a new burrow. Nonsense ...weasel words. You are very trying as the following has been said numerous times upthread.

Hopefully this will settle it once and for all. 

To be precise.

Tegnell says 'herd Immunity' WASN'T the 'GOAL', health care protection was the 'goal'. Tegnell says 'herd immunity' WAS an OUTCOME but they didn't factor that in for achieving that 'goal.' 

______________________

28 April

Swedish official Anders Tegnell says ‘herd immunity’ in Sweden might be a few weeks away

Anders Tegnell has denied that “herd immunity” formed the central thrust of Sweden’s containment plan, BUT he also said the country may be starting to see the impact of “herd immunity.”

TRANSCRIPT

What’s the latest from Sweden?

Tegnell; "We could reach herd immunity in Stockholm within a matter of weeks."

What is Sweden’s COVID-19 strategy?

Tegnell: "We are trying to keep transmission rates at a level that the Stockholm health system can sustain. 

That is our goal. We are not calculating herd immunity in this. With various measures, we are just trying to keep the transmission rate as low as possible. 

We believe herd immunity will of course help us in the long run, and we are discussing that, but it’s not like we are actively trying to achieve it as has been made out (by the press and some scientists). If we wanted to achieve herd immunity we would have done nothing and let coronavirus run rampant through society.

______________________

These Vids REPEAT the above.

10 May

At 1.15 

__________________________

May 19 (When Death Toll was HALF current)

At 4.30 - 7.15

_____________________________

23 April - Johan Gieseske current advisor (modelling) to Sweden Health and Tegnell's predecessor. Is not so careful with his language.

At 2.50 

_______________________________

4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

"Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment" ?"

Nonsense they have introduced regional lockdowns as you yourself have cited upthread. 

Here are Sweden's current rules.

Note: the General recommendations that I posted above had been updated in the past week to reflect the new directives

Some are also the subject of new laws with enforcement in mind, not directives. The latest HERE and ALSO cited by Mat upthread. 

As I said.. tiresome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobG said:

You also can't ignore the very different responses of the respective national governments: calm and rational, if unorthodox, vs denial.

And don't forget the NE was the main virus entry point to the US via Europe when there was no restriction on returning nationals, families and residents and no screening. Sweden is a Nth Europe dead end, terrestrially connected to Denmark in the south by one bridge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.  They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

"WHO..Pandemic strategies ...they were formulated well before Covid  and in many instances well before Swine flu."

Not according to this WHO material.

4 FEBRUARY 2020 - WHO Strategic preparedness and response plan

WHO COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Progress Report - 1 February to 30 June 2020

Updated country preparedness and response status for COVID-19 as of 9 June 2020

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Matagi said:

I think that positivity rate and the angle of incline/decline give you a good idea of where things are going.

But that does not apply once the testing strategy changes (Belgium) or you test too little or worse, reach test capacity

Yes and most annoying. 

Also behind the three (3) biggest issues that exist that prevent residents OR intending visitors making JUDGEMENTS about a county/state/country's virus response status in real time.

Counting the daily dead is too late.

Maybe even having status applied to WHO style "Strategic preparedness and response plan" guidelines. These measures outlined below should be regularly audited. 

Isn't it reasonable if people are supposed to go about their lives with Covid normality that transparency exists? It also gives citizens 'ownership' of Non-Pharma and Pharma Interventions and improves their success.

1. Testing Robustness Unknown.

There are NO standards attached to testing reporting.

For instance number of persons tested  VERSUS number of tests taken. Sweden abandoned the former which is a bit disturbing.

The positivity rate is not always reported.

There is no reference to time tested and result known. The LONGER the result the more USELESS the test for tracing purposes or for reporting confirmed daily cases. The UK are negligent in this regard. 

2. Contact/Trace Capacity Unknown

Countries should be obliged to publish the status of their Contact/Trace Thresholds when making significant response decisions. This is simply the percentage of persons tested where the SOURCE becomes unknown. For instance Germany advise theirs when widespread lockdowns become necessary.

3. No Reproduction Infection Rate (Ri) Regularly Reported and at a local/regional scale.

This is the pillar behind ALL NPI responses and readily tracked by the average Joe. Once infection exceeds say R1.3 or say one person infects >20 persons, alarm bells are already ringing.

The same thing is done during bushfire season to quantify fire risk in many countries. The fire rating is even displayed on 'active' road signs. Why should a epidemic be any different?

Some countries will or are already having Commision of Inquiry style investigations of their Covid responses. They will ultimately uncover the above underlying shortcomings. Why fuck around and not just do it now? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"WHO..Pandemic strategies ...they were formulated well before Covid  and in many instances well before Swine flu."

Not according to this WHO material.

4 FEBRUARY 2020 - WHO Strategic preparedness and response plan

WHO COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Progress Report - 1 February to 30 June 2020

Updated country preparedness and response status for COVID-19 as of 9 June 2020

Suggest you check here.  Apology accepted.  

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/pandemic-influenza/pandemic-preparedness/national-preparedness-plans/publicly-available-plans-prepared-after-2009-pandemic

https://www.who.int/influenza/preparedness/pandemic/en/

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/guide-public-health-measures-reduce-impact-influenza-pandemics-europe-ecdc-menu

A key document is the following from the ECDC - Dated:  Stockholm, September 2009.  Planning was based on an influenza virus with and R0 and IFR greater than Covid-19.  What is disturbing is that years and years of research and planning seems to have gone out the window in an instant during the current pandemic.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/0906_TER_Public_Health_Measures_for_Influenza_Pandemics.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
On 11/13/2020 at 1:33 PM, jack_sparrow said:

"WHO..Pandemic strategies ...they were formulated well before Covid  and in many instances well before Swine flu."

Not according to this WHO material.

4 FEBRUARY 2020 - WHO Strategic preparedness and response plan

WHO COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Progress Report - 1 February to 30 June 2020

Updated country preparedness and response status for COVID-19 as of 9 June 2020

Suggest you check here.  Apology accepted....

"Suggest you check here.  Apology accepted . ...."

That won't be happening for reasons shortly to become very fucking obvious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2020 at 4:33 PM, jack_sparrow said:

"WHO..Pandemic strategies ...they were formulated well before Covid  and in many instances well before Swine flu."

Not according to this WHO material.

I provided links to older information which supports what I originally posted.  So that negates the "liar" accusation.

As for being "dangerous" I haven't promoted anything contrary to the current recommendations.  

The point I have made is that in many countries the previously agreed strategies were abandoned.  Sweden in my opinion stuck to the plan more than most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
On 11/13/2020 at 1:33 PM, jack_sparrow said:

"WHO..Pandemic strategies ...they were formulated well before Covid  and in many instances well before Swine flu."

Not according to this WHO material.

I provided links to older information which supports what I originally posted.  So that negates the "liar" accusation.

As for being "dangerous" I haven't promoted anything contrary to the current recommendations...  

....Sweden in my opinion stuck to the plan more than most.

What "accusation" ???

Nothing in my 6 words "Not according to this WHO material." accuses you of being a "liar" or "dangerous"????

You have jumped in and are 'lying about lying' in advance.

"reasons shortly to become very fucking obvious."

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:
9 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
On 11/13/2020 at 1:33 PM, jack_sparrow said:

"WHO..Pandemic strategies ...they were formulated well before Covid  and in many instances well before Swine flu."

Not according to this WHO material.

4 FEBRUARY 2020 - WHO Strategic preparedness and response plan

WHO COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Progress Report - 1 February to 30 June 2020

Updated country preparedness and response status for COVID-19 as of 9 June 2020

Suggest you check here.  Apology accepted....

"Suggest you check here.  Apology accepted . ...."

That won't be happening for reasons shortly to become very fucking obvious

Starting to sweat are we. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jack_sparrow said:

Nothing in my 6 words "Not according to this WHO material." saying that you are a "liar" or "dangerous"????

You have jumped in and are 'lying about lying' in advance.

"reasons shortly to become very fucking obvious."

Starting to sweat are we. :lol:

Quite frankly Wacko I don't give a damn what you think.  You ruin any reasonable discussion between reasonable people.  However most of us, unlike you it seems, don't need to behave like you to soothe what is obviously a fragile ego.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Quite frankly Wacko I don't give a damn what you think.

I think you might be lying about that though :lol:

5 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

However most of us,..

Most of ús here don't lie here. You are a very obvious exception. 

Stay tuned. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19. They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

 

On 11/13/2020 at 1:33 PM, jack_sparrow said:

 

16 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Suggest you check here..... 

 

 

WHAT YOU HAVE SAID USING CITES

"WHO..Pandemic strategies ...in many instances well before Swine flu......

Swine flu was in 2009. The OLDEST strategy on your WHO list of countries is 2012 or 3 years AFTER swine flu. There is AROUND 60 countries there. **

This list is also ONLY countries who have made their plans PUBLIC.

Listed as being updated AFTER 2009 is more than a giveaway, unless you are blind OR read AFTER making that absurd claim and now trying to bullshit your way out of a hole. :lol:

IMG_20201114_164100.jpg.530607bb1090b45048f5c303c9b22a8b.jpgIMG_20201114_155555.jpg.8885795aefd34b0ec6899eb7a58e25da.jpgIMG_20201114_155423.jpg.e439173b9f32d4fe84facd192b58b826.jpgIMG_20201114_163702.jpg.70127f56224ae3985df0fcb57aafdbef.jpgIMG_20201114_163912.jpg.3c860296420bc17c1f2abc5b89d917a1.jpg

Then WHO updated their LAST strategy BEFORE Covid in March 2018. OR just two years prior. Hardly "well before Swine flu" 11 years ago.

IMG_20201114_155918.jpg.137029172b401bc6d3935890207bbb71.jpg

Then AFTER Covid breaking out but BEFORE WHO declaring it a pandemic (11 March 2020) issued their "4 FEBRUARY 2020 - WHO Strategic preparedness and response planas I posted above.

IMG_20201114_121841.jpg.75bf1783ef859a45e53c017f063b9970.jpg

The need for this new 4 February 2020 WHO Strategic Plan for guidance is patently obvious. Their 2018 publication does not deal with the unique circumstances of the emergence of a new pandemic strain with a higher Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) and Reproduction Number (R0).

So what you have said about pandemic planning 'by country' and  it's 'timing' is complete and utter horseshit.

_____________________________

"Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR  than Covid-19."

So you are saying plans/strategies were in place BEFORE Covid for a MORE deadly influenza virus by having a HIGHER RO and IFR than Covid -19. WTF.

All the above plans and strategies are based on the 2009 swine flu, or H1N1 virus, which had R0 value between 1.4 and 1.6 LOWER than Covid-19 and a LOWER IFR than Covid-19 (for those generally above 35 years of age).

Words fucking escape me.

:lol::lol::lol:

_________________________

"Suggest you check here"

OK let's try your Sweden 2015 plan you are so enamoured with.

IMG_20201114_102253.jpg.ca27d3d4fa9083dc0ac06254cf818ba3.jpgIMG_20201114_102517.jpg.ef8fe3ebd3f5b147ac900ee7ff900b26.jpgIMG_20201114_102610.jpg.395d3c1f532487a32e44af0c20698155.jpg

Sweden's is dated 2015 6 YEARS after 2009 Swine Flu epidemic.

AND it's been PULLED.. Oooppps...

Yet you say;

"Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

So you are forming an opinion on a 2015 'influenza pandemic' plan that is NOT publically available, saying a plan you can't reference has NOT changed (when you have cited upthread not ONCE but TWICE details of where it HAS changed).

You then say;

"NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked."

YET like Sweden NYS/US DON'T have a influenza pandemic' plan publically available so you assume they DON'T seem to have one and so "panicked."

On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked.

What can I say??

Are you a Tarrot Card Reader that specialises in documents you have never seen?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

____________________________

On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

There is a section on the WHO website..

16 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Suggest you check here. 

 

"There is a section on the WHO website.."

"Suggest you check here"

So we check.

The European Centre for Disease Control is NOT WHO.

It is also dated 2009 and pre dates guidance for public health authorities in OVER 30 EU and EEA countries listed in the POST 2009 plans listed by YOU HERE including Sweden plans above dated 2015.

I should call it quits but regardless will keep going as as this retrospective citing shit gets fucking bizzare.

IMG_20201114_103304.jpg.c176f501033fb4e0bb35fa9d56017404.jpg

Dated June 2009

This is HTML version

From Executive Summary

"Hence there are good arguments that there should be default plans .....However, given the above considerations, these plans should have considerable flexibility and command and control structures that will allow changes to be made quickly in the light of new data and experience.

Also, the strength of effect could quite reasonably vary with the characteristics of the pandemic...... Hence it will not be possible to have fixed plans that fit every pandemic." 

I'm really struggling to stop laughing if this wasn't so serious.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

But it gets fucking better, the Download version the source of all those Tables you posted today.

________________________

16 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

A key document is the following from the ECDC - Dated:  Stockholm, September 2009.  Planning was based on an influenza virus with and R0 and IFR greater than Covid-19.  

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/0906_TER_Public_Health_Measures_for_Influenza_Pandemics.pdf

15 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

ECDC - Public Health Measures for Influenza Pandemics, September 2009 pg. 8.

15 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

LOTS OF ECDC SEPT 2009 TABLES POSTED

 

"A key document is the following from  the ECDC - Dated:  Stockholm, September 2009. Planning was based on an influenza virus with and R0 and IFR greater than Covid-19."

"ECDC - Public Health Measures fo Influenza   Pandemics, September 2009 pg. 8."

So we hit YOUR linky Download button. 

This is the PDF Version dated Sept 2009 of the June 2009 HTML version above.

So SAME comments above apply.

In addition these comments having ease of page references.

From Page 2

"The point about costly and disruptive measures.....Hence such measures may only have a net benefit if implemented during a severe pandemic, for example one that results in high hospitalisation rates.....
For these reasons, early assessment of the clinical severity of a pandemic globally and in European settings will be crucial." 

From Page 8

"Limitations 
This document also does not deal with the unique circumstances of the first 
emergence of a pandemic strain.." WTF.

From Page 32

Tables

Important variations: 
There are some important parameters that are known to have varied significantly in the three pandemics that have been well studied (see http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/Health_Topics/Pandemic_Influenza/stats.aspx).

These are: 
- Severity of disease – the case fatality rate. 
- Age groups most affected and where transmission has been concentrated. 

In addition, the severity of disease will change over time so that the case fatality rate needs to be monitored.

So you cited an 11 YEAR OLD guidance for health authorities in over 30 countries FOR an Influenza Pandemic that the very document itself  states it is SUBJECT TO SEVERITY being measured by 'case fatality' and 'hospitalisation' rates, AND it "DOES NOT DEAL with the unique circumstances of the FIRST EMERGENCE of a pandemic strain."

In other words it CANNOT BE APPLIED TO COVID-19.

WHY DIDN'T you cite the European Centre for Disease Control's FIRST guidance for health authorities in those 30+ EU/EEC countries FOR this Covid-19 Pandemic?

Answer; It is clearly Covid-19 specific PLUS the ECDC Timeline for its guidance  PRE-DATES WHO's pandemic announcement by ONLY TWO MONTHS. For instance;

On 9 January 2020, ECDC published a Threat Assessment

This was followed up starting in February a series titled "Translated guidance on COVID-19" available in 26 languages.

YOU HAVE USED a 2009 ECDC Influenza Pandemic  document, IGNORING;

- it stated it did not apply to NEW VIRUS strains and or those having a higher severity than the 2009 swine flu, or H1N1 virus.

- it was ABANDONED by over 30 countries including Sweden when it was first superceded in 2012, NOT this year.

- it was superceded by country specific plans, in Sweden's case in 2015.

- it was superceded by ECDC Covid-19 specific guidance starting January this year for over 30 European countries incl Sweden. 

- the ECDC Covid -19 guidance from January 2020 Sweden has generally ADOPTED having regard for that guidance. As well as all guidance post 2009 they state that response plans  had to be TAILORED to individual countries demographics etc.

- That ECDC guidance DOES NOT address 'regulatory' response frameworks such as Sweden's which is 'regulatory light' and makes it so different, NOT the response measures.

This only one of the many words which describes your posts; FRAUD.

____________________

YOUR POINT

Your posts make your point crystal clear.

You have set out to fraudulently mislead.

On 11/13/2020 at 8:52 AM, RobG said:

PS

This may seem a little off topic, but NY is a pretty good test sample for discussions around "natural herd immunity" and the Swedish experiment.

On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Yes it may well be but arguably NYS was a bigger "experiment" than Sweden.

Herd immunity wasn't the strategy in Sweden.

There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.  They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

Those strategies are all based on suppressing infection to a level that the respective health systems can cope with AND minimising unintended consequences or put another way minimising economic effects, other negative health outcomes etc.

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked

 

Your fraudulenty based point is that in many countries they had agreed strategies that PRE-DATED Covid-19 and some even the  2009 Swine Flu. Then upon the onset of Covid-19 most abandoned those plans, whereas Sweden DIDN'T and STUCK to their 2015 plan, (one which you are ignorant to). 

To reinforce the above point you went so far as to fraudulently claim most countries long standing Influenza Pandemic strategies "were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

To further reinforce the above point you took @RobG post on the US, where you said it was even worse there than abandoning a plan but stating; "NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked."

Your other point was that "Herd immunity wasn't the strategy in Sweden" . That was disproved in my seperate post upthread which you HAVEN'T challenged. I'm therefore assuming you accept that, but that a stupid thought.

All those points have been challenged above and their 'basis' proven to be not just wrong but fraudulent in their intent.

Your final point when I challenged your claim about pandemic planning and Sweden had in fact NOT stuck to their plan, was to state I was wrong and owed you an apology. 

"Suggest you check here . Apology accepted."

On 11/13/2020 at 12:52 PM, jack_sparrow said:
On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

"Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment" ?"

Nonsense they have introduced regional lockdowns as you yourself have cited upthread. 

"Here are Sweden's current rules."

"Note: the General recommendations that I posted above had been updated in the past week to reflect the new directives"

Some are also the subject of new laws with enforcement in mind, not directives. The latest HERE and ALSO cited by Mat upthread. 

As I said.. tiresome.

On 11/13/2020 at 1:33 PM, jack_sparrow said:
On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.  They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

"WHO..Pandemic strategies ...they were formulated well before Covid  and in many instances well before Swine flu."

Not according to this WHO material.

4 FEBRUARY 2020 - WHO Strategic preparedness and response plan

WHO COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Progress Report - 1 February to 30 June 2020

Updated country preparedness and response status for COVID-19 as of 9 June 2020

IMG_20201113_173027.jpg.d632e399caf4b36029f1760be53c47a1.jpg

16 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Suggest you check here.  Apology accepted.  

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/pandemic-influenza/pandemic-preparedness/national-preparedness-plans/publicly-available-plans-prepared-after-2009-pandemic

https://www.who.int/influenza/preparedness/pandemic/en/

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/guide-public-health-measures-reduce-impact-influenza-pandemics-europe-ecdc-menu

A key document is the following from the ECDC - Dated:  Stockholm, September 2009.  Planning was based on an influenza virus with and R0 and IFR greater than Covid-19.  What is disturbing is that years and years of research and planning seems to have gone out the window in an instant during the current pandemic.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/0906_TER_Public_Health_Measures_for_Influenza_Pandemics.pdf

 

 

Those points combined with points you have seperately made such as; 

 The UK a country of 68 million when running for months/weeks at only a 3,000 new cases a day in mid September and that starting to trend up and so the Government's Scientific Advisory Group (SAGE) recommended a 'short-circuit' lockdown of limited duration (which Govt didn't implement) you said on 5 November;

"But it was too late then (15 Sept). Cases were  already well over 3,000 a day."

Then same day on 5 November and your same post when a lockdown was finally implemented and new cases were 25,177, the second largest rise since March, 492 deaths the highest daily increase for 5 months & 58% higher than same day the week before and a record 1,421new hospitalisations, you said on 5 November of that lockdown that day;

"Based on the data and past evidence it would appear it is occurring too late to affect the current curve. Regardless there is NO POINT doing it now as it appears the peak has been reached."

Yet one week later new cases have risen by one third to 36,000 and deaths are up over 600 only 30% shy of the April peak.

You are also of the same view expressed in the Barrington Declaration that Contact/Tracing doesn't work with Covid-19.

There is a clear narrative in all your points above that is clearly dangerous.

_______________________________

CONCLUSION

By any objective assessment your fraudulent intent to mislead has been exposed and smashed into little unrecoverable pieces, unrecoverable even by someone of your ilk.

- You MAKE SHIT UP like many country pandemic influenza plans were "formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu." OR over 11 years ago. 

- You clearly DON'T read your own cites, focused presumably on your dangerous narrative or if you do mistakenly think simply posting a cite, all here think it credible and never read it.

- You apply quotes to those cites or explicit inferences that DON'T EXIST and so clearly made knowing them to be a LIE ie. Many countries efluennza pandemic plans incl Sweden's were "based on an influenza pandemic with and R0 and IFR greater than Covid-19."

You articulate a point of view which is fine. NOT fine is when it references say a Swedish Influenza Pandemic plan dated 2015 which you cite as having been adhered to, but upon investigation IT ISNT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

- You downplay dangerous situations such in the UK to spin your narrative that lockdowns don't work and are an over reaction. The Swedish death toll in Spring another example.

- You manipulate the truth, people's posts  and where the truth is inconvenient or can't be ignored, ignore it which is bullshitting by omission.

So as for this apology shit...You know where to shove it.

16 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Suggest you check hereApology accepted.  

You are a 'dangerous-pathological-lying cunt'.

PS. My apologies all for the 5kg of word salad, scroll past if it pisses you off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^ that deals completely with this fabricated bullshit. 

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I provided links to older information which supports what I originally posted.  So that negates the "liar" accusation.

As for being "dangerous" I haven't promoted anything contrary to the current recommendations.  

The point I have made is that in many countries the previously agreed strategies were abandoned.  Sweden in my opinion stuck to the plan more than most.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Jacko was up all night.  Good to see you have a hobby Jack.

None of what has been posted negates my initial statement that National Pandemic plans were based on scenario's that had worse disease characteristics than Covid-19.  That makes sense because in health planning one should "plan for the worst and hope for the best."  Although "hope" should be mitigated by preparedness.

WHO along with other National agencies supported by key researchers in the field identified a Coronavirus as the most likely candidate for a global pandemic.  Some were even more specific and predicted a variant of SARS (SARS-COV-1).

From 2005 onwards WHO, CDC and other National Agencies started pursuing Pandemic "War Game" simulations - the general parameters were an influenza or respiratory virus with a comparatively high R0 and IFR.  One exercise 2006 involved a number of large companies (Fortune 100) in the USA participating in any early simulation.  Another that year was titled "Global Tempest."  It was for a virus that was "a global event that could last 8 to 12 weeks in any one location, cause up to 24 months of disruption around the globe, and kill 200,000 to 1.9 million just in the United States, according to the US government."

Between 2006 and 2008 there were six influenza pandemic exercises just in the USA.  You can go back further and check out the 2001 "Dark Winter" exercise which was based on a bio-terrorist attack using Small Pox as the Agent.  Check out exercises "Atlantic Storm" 2005, Exercise Cygnus - UK 2016 and more.  Although more recent John Hopkins University conducted a simulation called "SPARS Pandemic Scenario" 2017.  https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2017/spars-pandemic-scenario.pdf  They even have simulated Twitter and social media messages that you would think were posted in March of this year!  

Reading that scenario you would be forgiven for believing that it was written a month ago not three years ago!  It actually uses a Covid virus as the pandemic agent.  As an aside if anyone is interested check out the work of Thomas V. Inglesby - Scientist and advisor to the CDC and WHO.  He predicted a Coronavirus as the  most likely candidate for a pandemic some years ago.  With regard to that in 2018 WHO put a SARS (Coronavirus) virus as the top candidate for an outbreak.

Now I could list screeds and screeds of research, planning exercises, plans and utterances from National and Global Agencies but I won't.  What I will say is that with all that planning and research it would be just plain insanity to believe that the plans going into 2020 weren't a product of all that work nor that they hadn't been based on a Covid-19 like scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Matagi said:

Women_in_Waldorf-Astoria.jpg

Mmmhhhh.

[Nodding, yet thinking of that beautiful evening in a little bistro in Cassis...]

Hmmm?

Mmmhh.

[opening another bottle of Petrus]

LOL - oh for the times when you caught up with the "news" about once a week!

I wonder what "opinions" were written on the ticker tapes or was it just confined to data?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

CONCLUSION

By any objective assessment your fraudulent intent to mislead has been exposed and smashed into little unrecoverable pieces, unrecoverable even by someone of your ilk.

- You MAKE SHIT UP like many country pandemic influenza plans were "formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu." OR over 11 years ago. 

- You apply quotes to those cites or explicit inferences that DON'T EXIST and so clearly made knowing them to be a LIE ie. Many countries efluennza pandemic plans incl Sweden's were "based on an influenza pandemic with and R0 and IFR greater than Covid-19."

- You manipulate the truth, people's posts and where the truth is inconvenient or can't be ignored, ignore it which is bullshitting by omission.

ToRight on Q the fraudster is hard at it.

10 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

None of what has been posted negates my initial statement that National Pandemic plans were based on scenario's that had worse disease characteristics than Covid-19. 

On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.  They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu...

Sweden stuck to the plan so is it really an "experiment"?

NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked.

 

"National Pandemic plans were based on   scenario's that had worse disease characteristics than Covid - 19."

That is NOT what you said. 

"Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR  than Covid-19. They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu."

You have also carved out your claims about Sweden pandemic plan response compared to other countries.

To support your original claim is very simple.

POST an 'extract' from ONE 'National Influenza Pandemic Plan' from YOUR WHO LIST of 50+ countries titled; "Publicly available plans prepared after 2009" which indicates existence of a pre-Covid plan having a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

I bet you CAN'T and DON'T. 

________________________________

HINT

Don't bother trying Sweden's as that is NOT available (despite you saying it had been followed unchanged) OR  ploughing through the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 on that list.   

IMG_20201115_160416.jpg.ead16167de9e9a66f93a536dca61c10a.jpgIMG_20201115_160145.jpg.19723c5c319c1fdb6fbce0a4ece77995.jpg

Why pick the UK?

Well actually YOU did in your 'diversion' trying to suggest BUT with no evidence, that  'war gaming' BEFORE 2009 informed plans formulated AFTER 2009. There was however one post 2009 EXCEPTION titled, "Exercise  Cygnus - UK 2016"

10 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

From 2005 onwards WHO, CDC and other National Agencies started pursuing Pandemic "War Game" simulations.....

....Check out exercises "Atlantic Storm" 2005, Exercise Cygnus - UK 2016....

Now I could list screeds and screeds of research, planning exercises, plans and utterances from National and Global Agencies but I won't.  What I will say is that with all that planning and research it would be just plain insanity to believe that the plans going into 2020 weren't a product of all that work nor that they hadn't been based on a Covid-19 like scenario.

You say;

"Now I could list screeds and screeds of research, planning exercises, plans and utterances from National and Global Agencies but I won't. What I will say is that with all that planning and research it would be just plain insanity to believe that the plans going into 2020 weren't a product of all that work nor that they hadn't been based on a Covid-19 like scenario."

To be be perfectly clear you have said upon the onset  of Covid-19 most countries abandoned their plans, whereas Sweden DIDN'T and STUCK to their 2015 plan, (one which you are ignorant to ). You are NOW suggesting the UK had a Covid ready plan post 'Exercise Cygnus.'

To also be clear national plans are prepared by national NOT global agencies and it is national influenza plans which you have claimed to account for virus severity in excess of Covid, not they are "based on a Covid-19 like scenario" Too late for a row back that contradicts what you say in the same post. Anyway it is pointless as you are about to find out.  :lol:

You really should have looked at the utterances from the UK's National Agency since YOU quoted them. But this is your MO. :lol:

18 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

You clearly DON'T read your own cites, focused presumably on your dangerous narrative or if you do mistakenly think simply posting a cite, all here think it credible and never read it.

So why are you wasting your time ploughing through the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 on that list?

Simple.

The UK Governments OWN words.

Firstly from the plan itself.

From Page 15 - "Summary of planning assumptions for pandemic preparedness

A pandemic is most likely to be caused by a new subtype of the Influenza A virus but the plans could be adapted and deployed for scenarios such as an outbreak of another infectious disease, eg Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in health care settings, with an altogether different pattern of infectivity.

Page 14. Influenza pandemic planning in the UK has been based on an assessment of the 
reasonable worst case”......

For deaths, the analysis of previous influenza pandemics suggests that we should plan 
for a situation in which up to 2.5% of those with symptoms would die as a result of 
influenza. 

These “reasonable worst case” planning assumptions take no account of the potential effect of response measures such as practising good respiratory and hand hygiene, the use of antiviral medicines and antibiotics, and modern hospital care for those with severe illness. Such measures should reduce the number of patients needing hospital care or dying, even in a widespread and severe pandemic, although the extent cannot be known in advance.

From John Hopkins University of Medicine the the UK's Case Fatality Rate is 3.9% WITH response measures excluded from the plans "reasonable worse case" scenario of 2.5%

SO much for; 

"National Pandemic plans were based on   scenario's that had worse disease characteristics than Covid - 19."

And your original. 

"Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR  than Covid-19"

And this is to save the trouble of more weasel words trying to dilute the above.

Would you fucking believe your bad luck, out popped a paper only last week titled; 5 Nov 2020 - "UK pandemic preparedness" 

They say of their UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 and 'stress tested' using 'Exercise Cygnus' as follows;

"However, there are some important differences between the virus that causes COVID-19 and the virus that causes influenza. As such, not all aspects of the UK’s plans for mitigating an influenza pandemic have been applied to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak."

"It is important to note that there are distinct differences between a coronavirus pandemic and pandemic influenza."

"Exercise Cygnus was not designed to consider OTHER potential pandemics, or to identify what action could be taken to prevent widespread transmission.

It was set in week 7 of the UK’s response to a fictitious influenza pandemic. The fictitious scenario for the exercise also included the possibility of 200,000 to 400,000 excess deaths in the UK if the government took no mitigating actions."

But it gets even fucking better. I bet you didn't know the UK have just released after a long time cooking a detailed review of Exercise Cygnus ITSELF. It is titled; 5 November 2020 - "Exercise Cygnus Report 

IMG_20201115_160255.jpg.07439aac673ac7223a89919f52914787.jpg

When it became clear the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 was a fail and the response to Exercise Cygnus itself a fail, it was decided pandemic influenza legislation was essential.  The Coronavirus Act 2020 was enacted AFTER the first lockdown in March.

_______________________________________

So you are shit out of luck with the UK's plans predating Convid and exceeding or even accommodating Convid's viral severity . :lol:

I really hope you have better success with the other 50+ countries on your list and find just ONE pre- covid national Influenza Pandemic plan based on a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

Chop chop...haven't got all day.

3f2bb696-5866-4e87-8f2a-595b0389ae79.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do provide some hilarity aside from just a masterclass in 'fraud' and 'doubling down' with it.

Nothing planned in NYS to suddenly more pandemic plan stress testing than you can poke a fucking stick at.  :lol::lol::lol:

On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

NYS seemed to have nothing planned and panicked.

11 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

From 2005 onwards WHO, CDC and other National Agencies started pursuing Pandemic "War Game" simulations - the general parameters were an influenza or respiratory virus.....

Another that  year was titled "Global Tempest."  It was for a virus that was  "a global event that could last 8 to 12 weeks in any one location, cause up to 24 months of  disruption around the globe, and kill 200,000 to 1.9 million just in the United States, accordin g  to the US government."

Between 2006 and 2008 there were six influenza pandemic exercises just in the USA.....

...Although more recent John Hopkins University conducted a simulation called "SPARS Pandemic Scenario" 2017....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2020 at 10:36 AM, BlatantEcho said:

Weekly update of daily deaths in Sweden. Average 6 per day.

Down 94% from April.

Screen Shot 2020-11-12 at 9.34.37 AM.png

Here is a good piece of information why you have to take the Swedish figures with a grain of salt. And patience:

'This also means that each day, the Swedish government will add new deaths for multiple days in the past—mostly on recent days, but on average up to 10 days in the past, and sometimes even more, if deaths have been reported with a long delay.' (end quote)

Sweden_1.jpg.d49d53793643859ba931b7f978be138f.jpg

So basically you have to wait 10 days for final figures regarding deaths. Not that this is a figure that has any meaning regarding your ability to steer sth. Still, it gives you a good hint on how they deal with numbers in Sweden, and reports for ICU admission seem to suffer from the same lag.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Matagi said:
On 11/12/2020 at 7:36 PM, BlatantEcho said:

Weekly update of daily deaths in Sweden. Average 6 per day.

Down 94% from April.

 IMG_20201115_194247.jpg.bb82b9094f8754d5900de27019ebcb7d.jpgScreen Shot 2020-11-12 at 9.34.37 AM.png

Here is a good piece of information why you have to take the Swedish figures with a grain of salt. And patience:...

Mat good graphic find.

Ironically it was Tegnell himself noting that when numbers were dropping, numbers were slow to publically materialise. He doesn't raise that subject now.  

You can be assured Blatant and his 'likey' companion are hooked on salt and won't take heed of the heads up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"It is important to note that there are distinct differences between a coronavirus pandemic and pandemic influenza."

 

What are those distinct differences?  Well it isn't Ror IFR.  Note: this isn't a reference to seasonal influenza but a novel influenza with not pre-existing immunity.

Both are respiratory diseases - so no distinct difference there.

Both are transmitted in the same way.

Influenza has a shorter incubation period and subsequently can spread quicker.  A negative for influenza.

Covid-19 infection doesn't seem to be infectious until the symptom stage - not the case with influenza and again a negative for it.

Ris higher for Covid-19 at around 2-2.5 (estimated) than influenza.  A negative for Covid-19.

IFR is higher for Covid-19 than seasonal influenza but LESS than some influenza pandemics e.g. the Spanish Flu (note the mortality rate for Spanish Flu was 3.5 times that of Covid-19 at the same stage in the pandemic).

So Jacko I'd be interested to know what the DISTINCT DIFFERENCES are between Covid-19 and a novel pandemic influenza.

Disclaimer:  this is not to suggest that Covid-19 is "only a bad flu" - it is worse than the seasonal flu and some pandemic flu's but not as bad as some (e.g. Spanish Flu).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for my supposition that National pandemic planning has been based on a virus that is worse than Covid-19.  I've provided some evidence to support that.  Unlike some it hasn't been limited to one article aka "The Gold Standard."

Now the contrary view is that this planning HASN'T been based on a virus that is worse than Covid-19.  If that is the case are we being led to believe that WHO, the EUDC, the CDC and many other agencies are idiots?  What would be the point if you didn't prepare for a case that was close to the Spanish Flu?  The reality is that they did.

You can deflect the debate by saying "Covid-19 isn't a pandemic influenza".  Yes it is a different virus however from a planning perspective it is a respiratory virus with a relatively high transmission rate, a relatively high mortality rate.  They are the BAD factors.  However significantly there are some positive differences compared to Spanish flu the mortality burden on the very young and the majority of the working population is light.  In 1917-18 whole industries and government utilities actually stopped functioning because their workers were so severely affected.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
17 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"It is important to note that there are distinct differences between a coronavirus pandemic and pandemic influenza."

 

What are those distinct differences? ..

That quote is all you could cherry pick. 

You ignore completely the balance of my post with quoted and cited statements.

Also nice addition of surrounding quotation marks and snipping the following sentence to remove context.

"As such, not all aspects of the UK’s  plans for mitigating an influenza pandemic have been applied to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak."

Take that up with the UK virus experts who wrote it.....I'm sure you know them personally from global epidemiology conferences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
17 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"It is important to note that there are distinct differences between a coronavirus pandemic and pandemic influenza."

What are those distinct differences?  Well it isn't Ror IFR.  Note: this isn't a reference to seasonal influenza but a novel influenza with not pre-existing immunity.......

Then you move question of R0 and IFR out of context. 

Your said.

"Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

On 11/13/2020 at 9:03 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

There is a section on the WHO website that lists links to the pandemic strategies by country.  Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19.  They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu.

Then you go strawman.

"So Jacko I'd be interested to know what the DISTINCT DIFFERENCES are between Covid-19 and a novel  pandemic influenza."

5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So Jacko I'd be interested to know what the DISTINCT DIFFERENCES are between Covid-19 and a novel pandemic influenza.

This nothing new as already observed.

On 11/14/2020 at 10:19 PM, jack_sparrow said:

- You manipulate the truth, people's posts  and where the truth is inconvenient or can't be ignored, ignore it which is bullshitting by omission.

You are a fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

As for my supposition that National pandemic planning has been based on a virus that is worse than Covid-19.  I've provided some evidence to support that..... 

" As for my supposition that National pandemic  planning has been based on a virus that is worse than Covid -19. I've provided some evidence to support that."

A paragraph starting with the words; "were based" and continuing "were formulated" as you stated, is NOT a supposition.  More truth twisting.

You have provided ZERO evidence to support this claim of world Influenza pandemic plans having a higher R0 and IFR than Covid and predating Covid;

"Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19. They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu."

I have ALREADY provided detailed evidence to the CONTRY for one country, the UK. Now it's YOUR turn.

YOU provide the evidence as requested from any one of the 50+ publically available pre-Covid national influenza pandemic plans YOU have listed

If you can't, then you are lying pure and simple.

18 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

To support your original claim is very simple.

POST an 'extract' from ONE 'National Influenza Pandemic Plan' from YOUR WHO LIST of 50+ countries titled; "Publicly available plans prepared after 2009" which indicates existence of a pre-Covid plan having a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

I bet you CAN'T and DON'T

3f2bb696-5866-4e87-8f2a-595b0389ae79.gif.46207a370d3811cee4b4ea7b439fee79.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^ BTW you don't make mistakes, you deliberately set out to fraudulently mislead to promote your narrative. 

This however was a really big fucking mistake.

On 11/14/2020 at 6:43 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Suggest you check hereApology accepted.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

In 1917-18 whole industries and government utilities actually stopped functioning because their workers were so severely affected.

Is that that not happening to hospitals today?

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ncik said:

Is that that not happening to hospitals today?

No.  Those that work are not as affected as they were during the Spanish Flu.

If you are saying that hospitals are generally at max capacity then where is this occurring? I dont know where you can find this information for the USA but in the UK they are nowhere near full capacity.  As per the first peak Covid-19 cases are occupying around 10% of  beds.  

I have seen similar figures for the USA from the AHA website - 66% capacity - 10% Covid-19 however I dont know the veracity of that data.

ICU bed use is also well down in the UK.  Part of that can be explained by changes in treatment protocols.  Early prescribing of steroids and other treatments are proving to have better outcomes than ventilators.  Surprisingly that was "learnt" during SARS as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

No.  Those that work are not as affected as they were during the Spanish Flu.

If you are saying that hospitals are generally at max capacity then where is this occurring? I dont know where you can find this information for the USA but in the UK they are nowhere near full capacity.  As per the first peak Covid-19 cases are occupying around 10% of  beds.  

I have seen similar figures for the USA from the AHA website - 66% capacity - 10% Covid-19 however I dont know the veracity of that data.

ICU bed use is also well down in the UK.  Part of that can be explained by changes in treatment protocols.  Early prescribing of steroids and other treatments are proving to have better outcomes than ventilators.  Surprisingly that was "learnt" during SARS as well.

https://apnews.com/article/international-news-milan-italy-coronavirus-pandemic-51f93fa0a281f3c7db7d8cf8760cfb38

As of Wednesday, 52% of Italy’s hospital beds were occupied by COVID-19 patients...

Hospitals are now struggling to find enough trained specialists — especially anesthesiologists for critical care units — and other medical personnel to cover for doctors and nurses under quarantine after falling ill or being exposed.

 

What's your definition of "stopped functioning"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ncik said:

What's your definition of "stopped functioning"?

I wasn't referring to Italy.  Nor do I believe anything I see reported in the media.  The difference is with the Spanish Flu the work force was decimated by the severity of the illness and death.

With Covid-19 the vast majority of cases are mild/asymptomatic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other issues to consider with Italy is that it has the second oldest population in the world.  This statistic is even further skewed in Northern Italy.

In the first wave the median age of hospitalisations in Italy was 67.  87% of those who died were over 70. 

There were reports a few months ago that the Covid-19 deaths in Italy were over recorded.  For example all pneumonia deaths were classified as Covid-19 and most were not tested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I wasn't referring to Italy.  Nor do I believe anything I see reported in the media.  The difference is with the Spanish Flu the work force was decimated by the severity of the illness and death.

With Covid-19 the vast majority of cases are mild/asymptomatic.  

So Italy doesn't suffer from Covid and shouldn't be considered as a case study...got it. Gee your scientific mind really lays waste to standard conventions.

So you don't believe in ANYTHING reported in the media...got it. Surely you believe in some things?

An interesting read...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

28 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

With Covid-19 the vast majority of cases are mild/asymptomatic.  

The Spanish Flu "only" had a death rate of about 1-6% of the population (17-100 million) with an infection of about 500 million (a third of worlds population). So this claim could be equally stated about Spanish Flu, which you keep comparing CV19 to favourably.

And yet the report you don't want to read states that hospitals are filling up.

 

And meat works in the US...

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6927e2.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_the_meat_industry_in_the_United_States

So tell me again how CV19 isn't affecting industry? Plants are closing temporarily due to outbreaks. Millions of dollars turnover lost, supply chains interrupted.

 

Why are you trying to minimise this pandemic?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ncik said:

So Italy doesn't suffer from Covid and shouldn't be considered as a case study...got it. Gee your scientific mind really lays waste to standard conventions.

No on the contrary.  What I am saying is you can't take one population with a substantially different demographic and extend that as representing Covid-19 as a whole.  Case in point the UK and the USA seen to be different.  That difference could be explained by the age demographic.

43 minutes ago, Ncik said:

The Spanish Flu "only" had a death rate of about 1-6% of the population (17-100 million) with an infection of about 500 million (a third of worlds population). So this claim could be equally stated about Spanish Flu, which you keep comparing CV19 to favourably.

That wasn't the point I was making.  The Spanish Flu hammered the working population.  In the States they struggled to keep basic infrastructure going.  So no you can't make the same claim.  The median age of death was 28.  With 50% of deaths occurring between the ages of 15 and 45.  Compare that to Covid-19 where at least 50% are over 75.

At a comparable stage the mortality rate in NYS was 3.5 times Covid-19.  In industrial centres like Pittsburgh the mortality rate was even higher.

Your reference to meat works in the USA is hardly comparable.  For one those industries are conducive to the transmission of Covid-19.  Yes those plants and supply chains were interrupted but for how long?  Certainly not as long as industries in 1918.  All Food chains were disrupted as were transport networks.  The saviour then was that food was still grown locally.

44 minutes ago, Ncik said:

Why are you trying to minimise this pandemic?

I'm not trying to minimise the pandemic however I'm not exaggerating it either.  There is no value in doing either.  What is important is that we go past the headlines and seek the truth.

It is extremely frustrating to see exceptions in cases extrapolated to the general population.  A classic case in that scenario has been the alarmist headlines around reinfection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

....but in the UK they are nowhere near full capacity.  As per the first peak Covid-19 cases are occupying around 10% of  beds.  

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

ICU bed use is also well down in the UK

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I wasn't referring to Italy.  Nor do I believe anything I see reported in the media.

"I wasn't referring to Italy.  Nor do I believe anything I see reported in the media."

You referred to the UK and this is not the media. 

16 November GOV.UK- Daily numbers of COVID-19 patients admitted to UK hospitals.

 "As per the first peak Covid-19  cases are occupying around 10% of beds."

That proportion is rising every day and now ONLY 5K short of the peak. That proportion is also NOT officially reported by the Government until well AFTER the event and a PUNDIT/MEDIA figure.

The Second Qtr Bed Availability and Occupancy overall hospital stats are yet to be released so even comparison with first wave impossible.  YET you suddenly like that 10% media stat. :lol:

"ICU bed use is also well down in the UK." 

By even a cursory look at these UK Govt Health Care charts the overall Covid bed occupancy, the impact of it on Non Covid occupancy (hence consequential mortality), the proportional occupany and trajectory of ICU/mechanical ventilator beds (where occupancy of a ICU bed is far longer than general admission) then this is clearly the UK Govt greatest concern. 

You should ring them up and say they have got it all wrong.

Be diplomatic as it might have escaped your attention that the UK are also a world podium contestant in Covid mortality per capita stakes. 

IMG_20201116_164728.jpg

OCCUPANCY

IMG_20201116_163412.jpg

IMG_20201116_163132.jpg

NEW ADMISSIONS

IMG_20201116_165616.jpg

IMG_20201116_162737.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

BUMP

In all your flurry about going hospital today, don't forget about this 'outstanding' question from yesterday.

You can even ask a question if unsure of the question. Hate to see you stuck on a wee technicality.

Please don't tell me I have to give you more hints on your search for the TRUTH:lol:

7 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:
12 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

As for my supposition that National pandemic planning has been based on a virus that is worse than Covid-19.  I've provided some evidence to support that..... 

" As for my supposition that National pandemic  planning has been based on a virus that is worse than Covid -19. I've provided some evidence to support that."

A paragraph starting with the words; "were based" and continuing "were formulated" as you stated, is NOT a supposition.  More truth twisting.

You have provided ZERO evidence to support this claim of world Influenza pandemic plans having a higher R0 and IFR than Covid and predating Covid;

"Now these strategies were based on an influenza pandemic with higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19. They were formulated well before Covid and in many instances well before Swine flu."

I have ALREADY provided detailed evidence to the CONTRY for one country, the UK. Now it's YOUR turn.

YOU provide the evidence as requested from any one of the 50+ publically available pre-Covid national influenza pandemic plans YOU have listed

If you can't, then you are lying pure and simple.

On 11/15/2020 at 4:53 PM, jack_sparrow said:

To support your original claim is very simple.

POST an 'extract' from ONE 'National Influenza Pandemic Plan' from YOUR WHO LIST of 50+ countries titled; "Publicly available plans prepared after 2009" which indicates existence of a pre-Covid plan having a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

I bet you CAN'T and DON'T

3f2bb696-5866-4e87-8f2a-595b0389ae79.gif.46207a370d3811cee4b4ea7b439fee79.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If you are saying that hospitals are generally at max capacity then where is this occurring? I dont know where you can find this information for the USA but in the UK they are nowhere near full capacity.  As per the first peak Covid-19 cases are occupying around 10% of  beds.  

I have seen similar figures for the USA from the AHA website - 66% capacity -...

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

As per the first peak Covid-19  cases are occupying around 10% of beds."

That proportion is rising every day and now ONLY 5K short of the peak. That proportion is also NOT officially reported by the Government until well AFTER the event and a PUNDIT/MEDIA figure.

The Second Qtr Bed Availability and Occupancy overall hospital stats are yet to be released so even comparison with first wave impossible.  YET you suddenly like that 10% media stat. :lol:

 

"If you are saying that hospitals are generally at max capacity then where is this occurring? I dont know where you can find this information for the USA but in the UK they are nowhere near full capacity."

I have seen similar figures for the USA from the AHA website - 66% capacity -..."

Bollucks.

UK health security and resilience has always been low. When Covid hit, it had little recourse but to lock-down hard, albeit too late.

One recourse was to tip around 25K elderly out of hospitals untested to free up capacity...which didn't end well. That means today they have 25K LESS beds than during the first wave. 

Bottom line is UK has had few spare beds and unsafe occupancies in most of its hospitals in Dec 2019 and then it got worse.

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

The Second Qtr Bed Availability and Occupancy overall hospital stats are yet to be released so even comparison with first wave impossible

That UK Bed Availability and Occupancy data in graph form shows it ABOVE the 85% safe line with a mean OVER 90%.

Em7sxz8W8AAn19I.jpeg

PS. And comparing UK and US hospital capacity, particularly acute care is like comparing night and day. 

Emo2X5BWMAMmICC.png

Edited by jack_sparrow
PS. Added.
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Sweden on Monday announced a ban on public events of more than eight people at a press conference where ministers urged the population to "do the right thing".

The new limit is part of the Public Order Act and therefore is a law, not a recommendation like many of Sweden's coronavirus measures. People who violate the ban by organising larger events could face fines or even imprisonment of up to six months.

The law change will come into effect on November 24th and will initially apply for four weeks.

"It's going to get worse. Do your duty and take responsibility to stop the spread of infection. I'll say it again. It's going to get worse. Do your duty and take responsibility to stop the spread of infection," said Prime Minister Stefan Löfven at the press conference on Monday.'

Source

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

NHS England Bed availability and occupancy.

Occupancy

Q1=April-June
Q4=January-March

Q1 2020/21 66.4%
Q1 2019/20 88.0%

Q4 2019/20 86.3%
Q4 2018/19 89%

My apologies I didn't realise Q1 was April June and available to cover first wave . Putting aside that data is ALL hospitals incl mental, maternity, learning disability etc not those with acute care.

Putting also aside that your 10% Covid occupancy of hospitals with acute care is closer to 20% in reality.

Do you find it strange that when Covid is at its height in the April - June 2020 quarter occupancy DROPS around 20% from the preceeding Jan - March 2020 quarter and pre-Covid. Likewise compared to the SAME corresponding period in 2019???

Pretty weird isn't it. I'm perplexed you didn't mention it. :lol:

Could it possibly have anything to do with tipping 25k elderly out of hospital??

12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

One recourse was to tip around 25K elderly out of hospitals untested to free up capacity...which didn't end well. That means today they have 25K LESS beds than during the first wave. 

Could it be the cancellation of all non-emergency hospital admissions?

Could it be the addition of temporary Nightingale Hospitals that have never seen a patient?

It couldn't be a slight of hand by NHS England not to highlight this surely ...you know not wanting to highlight they killed tens of thousands of elderly for nothing?. :lol:

IMG_20201117_071101.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apology accepted.  Perhaps you should focus a bit more on the facts rather than finding what suits your narrative.

Waiting the cogent Q4 analysis.

Of course we were lead to believe that hospitals had maxed out in Q1 and were in crisis which wasn't the case.

Just as the current infection wave is substantially more than the first wave but Covid-19 hospitalisations haven't reached the same level and those receiving MV is one third the initial wave.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Waiting the cogent Q4 analysis.

Good idea.

Q4 or Jan - March 2021 should be available in May next year.

That should give you enough time to regroup and come up with something. :lol:

PS. I can't see the UK Health Minister being around then, maybe not even next week if this is any guide. Maybe you can save him?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Try comparing Q4 2018-19 with Q4 2019-20.

Yes Quarter ending March 2019 of 92% dropping to 89% in same Qtr this year and when that quarter is 92% like clockwork year in year out. Do the media know?

Anyway you are getting all distracted again today and keep forgetting this from Sunday.

Chop chop . :lol:

PS. I promise to be kind to you as I've got  2 LOOPHOLES for you if you go mea culpa. :rolleyes:

14 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:
11/15/2020 at 4:53 PM, jack_sparrow said:

To support your original claim is very simple.

POST an 'extract' from ONE 'National Influenza Pandemic Plan' from YOUR WHO LIST of 50+ countries titled; "Publicly available plans prepared after 2009" which indicates existence of a pre-Covid plan having a "higher R0 and IFR than Covid-19."

I bet you CAN'T and DON'T

 3f2bb696-5866-4e87-8f2a-595b0389ae79.gif.46207a370d3811cee4b4ea7b439fee79.gif

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Edited by jack_sparrow
Added PS - Attack of generosity & added 2 loopholes
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

seek the truth

I question where you are seeking the truth as you don't seem to believe experts in the field of infectious disease, who's advice world-wide has been listened to and acted on, on a scale of 0-100, with varying outcomes due to varying local circumstances. Perhaps because the experts seem to disagree on the best approach this causes confusion amongst us non-experts. History will bare the truth on this, but at this stage, those communities that haven't take this pandemic seriously are being hit fairly hard...if you believe the experts and many headlines. But I do agree that particularly elderly regions of the world seem to have been hit hardest, so that should be taken account of in the response.

The truth is that a very contageous disease is active in the world at large. This pandemic is still relatively early in its progress, the US has 11 million infections from a population of 330 million, less than 4%. Without some action by the community to restrain its expansion we would be in a very different place regarding infections, death and unknown societal problems. Experiences so far show that without effective action by the community then infections, deaths and societal problems flare up. Ignoring those problems won't make them magically go away.

The Spanish Flu was a different time and place; post-war, with reduced medical and communication technology and industry, working age men returning from war in poor health. But I tend to agree that if CV19 was hitting working age people harder we would be in a much worse position. Although that could be debated because if it was having a harder impact on younger people then it would probably be getting taken much more seriously and the mitigating actions the community would take would be tougher leading to better outcomes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Waiting the cogent Q4 analysis.

Good idea...

I now see you added to your post after I replied without notification..

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Apology accepted.  Perhaps you should focus a bit more on the facts rather than finding what suits your narrative.

Waiting the cogent Q4 analysis.

Of course we were lead to believe that hospitals had maxed out in Q1 and were in crisis which wasn't the case.

Just as the current infection wave is substantially more than the first wave but Covid-19 hospitalisations haven't reached the same level and those receiving MV is one third the initial wave.

"Apology accepted.  Perhaps you  should focus a bit more on the facts rather than finding what suits your narrative."

That apology only applied to Q2 being Q4, NOTHING ELSE.

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

My apologies I didn't realise Q1 was April June and available to cover first wave 

You then IGNORE the entire post addressing your hospital numbers and still do. 

That really is cunt territory. 

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

NHS England Bed availability and occupancy.

Occupancy

Q1=April-June
Q4=January-March

Q1 2020/21 66.4%
Q1 2019/20 88.0%

Q4 2019/20 86.3%
Q4 2018/19 89%

My apologies I didn't realise Q1 was April June and available to cover first wave . Putting aside that data is ALL hospitals incl mental, maternity, learning disability etc not those with acute care.

Putting also aside that your 10% Covid occupancy of hospitals with acute care is closer to 20% in reality.

Do you find it strange that when Covid is at its height in the April - June 2020 quarter occupancy DROPS around 20% from the preceeding Jan - March 2020 quarter and pre-Covid. Likewise compared to the SAME corresponding period in 2019???

Pretty weird isn't it. I'm perplexed you didn't mention it. :lol:

Could it possibly have anything to do with tipping 25k elderly out of hospital??

15 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

One recourse was to tip around 25K elderly out of hospitals untested to free up capacity...which didn't end well. That means today they have 25K LESS beds than during the first wave. 

Could it be the cancellation of all non-emergency hospital admissions?

Could it be the addition of temporary Nightingale Hospitals that have never seen a patient?

It couldn't be a slight of hand by NHS England not to highlight this surely ...you know not wanting to highlight they killed tens of thousands of elderly for nothing?. :lol:

IMG_20201117_071101.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The question should be asked why they turfed 25,000 people out of beds when they didn't need to?

Not interested in your diversions and stick this reply where the sun doesn't dare enter.

 BTW the backstory is global knowledge and in that vid above...nothing new new EXCEPT you are in denial it happened. 

In actors own words to stop your truth twisting. 

Friday 13 March -

At this point the only NPI was mitigation ie. hand washing and NO suppression.

Community testing was abandoned this day.

This on the radio airwaves this Friday ....confirmed UK was chasing HERD IMMUNITY. A similiar interview on Sky.

13 March

Tuesday 17 March.

The U-TURN

Transcript

Same Press Conference - Patrick Vallance: 20,000 [deaths] and below is a "good outcome in terms of where we hope to get to with this outbreak" WTF.

Note the US reacted the same way same day. 

Actual lockdown not fully implemented until 23 March 

Panic sets in with removal of elderly from hospital and put into care/own homes, non emergency hospitalisations cancelled and Knightingale Hospitals constructed as advised upthread. 

Hence this which you have ignored. 

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Do you find it strange that when Covid is at its height in the April - June 2020 quarter occupancy DROPS around 20% from the preceeding Jan - March 2020 quarter and pre-Covid. Likewise compared to the SAME corresponding period in 2019???

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Pretty weird isn't it. I'm perplexed you didn't mention it. :lol:

 

2 weeks later the UK deaths peaked where for a short period hospitals were overwhelmed. Staffing, equipment and resources was the bottleneck, not beds. 

The above you ignore only citing a full quarter occupancy April to June that completely distorts the picture.

You have been told that but just ignore it. 

You are reprehensible. 

EdHdCyFXkAE8YYH.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The question should be asked why they turfed 25,000 people out of beds when they didn't need to?

The logistics and inventory management of hospital admin bureaucracy is appalling.

So you make the NHS, UK hospitals and their staff (600 died in UK?) responsible for setting the UK's national health emergency response and blame them for the outcome. 

You are an appalling cunt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

This on the radio airwaves this Friday ....confirmed UK was chasing HERD IMMUNITY. A similiar interview on Sky.

This is the Sky interview I refer to also on Friday 13 March. 

Start Why is the UK not following other countries.

From 1.30 noting the "isolation" for those those with symptoms  had only been flagged 24 hours previous, bullshitting about tracing/testing that having been abandoned that SAME day (they simply had no capacity). 

From 4.40 Herd Immunity even nominating a HIT of 60%.

From 6.40 We know exactly what we are going etc. 

ONE WORKING DAY LATER LOCKDOWN ANNOUNCED.  

In short the UK was going to LET IT RIP

Rip indeed it did as lockdown was two late.

Nuremberg here we come. 

And in context to what was said that day on 13 March. This happened. 

According to someone here, hospitalisations in the UK dropped and there was hospital capacity to burn at the peak just two weeks after lockdown on 23 March which was announced on 17 March. 

Note: The second new cases peak was almost exclusively in the aged sector outside and inside care homes. 

IMG_20201117_122635.jpg

Deaths are only those announced daily by the Government and not ONS excess deaths by registration which are undercounted by approximately 40% at the peak and by cumulative total today, approx one-third.

IMG_20201117_122711.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Perhaps you should focus a bit more on the facts rather than finding what suits your narrative."

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:
5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The question should be asked why they turfed 25,000 people out of beds when they didn't need to?

Not interested in your diversions and stick this reply where the sun doesn't dare enter.

BTW the backstory is global knowledge and in that vid above...nothing new new EXCEPT you are in denial it happened. ....

 

"Perhaps you should focus a bit more on the facts rather than finding what suits your narrative."

You are the ONLY one avoiding facts like the plague except where you can't misrepresent and twist them. When questioned you ignore those questions. 

I have NO narrative and ONLY POST REBUTTALS  on anything which you post, which by any objective assessment is fabricated, misleading and fraudulent.

My posts are also supported by undeniable facts. You are the only one with a narrative to spin, one which clear to see. 

"BTW the backstory is global knowledge and  in that vid above...nothing new new EXCEPT you are in denial it happened"

Here is an 'abbreviated' version of that vid upthread dated yesterday, containing facts which you have elected to ignore.

Clearly the complete transcript was too long for your miniscule and polluted attention span.

The same Health Minister Hancock who said on 23 January;

"The public can be assured that the whole of the UK is always well-prepared for these types of outbreaks and will remain vigilant and keep our response under constant review in the light of emerging scientific evidence."

That really worked out well didn't it.

Remember one thing it is you who has chosen this subject matter not I, so own it.

Link to post
Share on other sites